Gotta disagree with this. Netflix prices have only been going up, and it seems to be due to the cost of streaming content. I've never found the streaming selection useful and the video quality is generally just not up to par. I subscribe for access to Blu-ray and DVDs and wish they would offer a disk only plan without the streaming costs. I've actually just put my plan on hold and am thinking about canceling due to the price levels...

True, but from a user's point of view they just want to get the functionality they need. If IT can not provide it, or an alternative, in a timely manner (no matter reason) then the user will go and figure out a workaround. Most people have more important things to do with their time then argue with IT about their need for some feature / go up the ladder to request a feature... Plus your suggested approach will often take a significant amount of time to accomplish anything. (I'm not saying though that this is relevant for the poster's situation.)

Equally likely is that the poster has suffered through delays in getting IT to process even the simplest of requests in the past and didn't feel like waiting months to get a basic calendaring system setup... I've been at some places where minor requests take weeks and multiple email reminders to get processed, while at other places the IT department is great with quick turnaround. It all depends on the people in the IT department...

With that said, the poster certainly should have first asked IT about implementing such a system (assuming he didn't).

The problem here is that in some work places IT is completely unresponsive to these types of requests. He needs a calendar system setup in a timely manner, not after contacting IT multiple times, speaking with different people up the ladder, and repeatedly having to babysit IT to make sure they are actually doing anything with his request. I'm not saying this is how it is at your work place (or even most), but I would guess his reluctance is due to slow IT response at his work place... I know that I've had good IT admins in the past at some work places, where requests are processed in a day or two, and slow IT admins where the simplest of requests can take weeks and repeated emails on my part for anything to be done. When one gets in the later situation eventually the "just get it done" mentality takes over and one does it themselves...

I shouldn't have to get dosed with xrays to fly. Do you really trust TSA workers to properly calibrate the machines? Medical physicists routinely mess up their calibrations (see recent NYTimes articles)... More than that, why do you trust the manufacturer claims that the amount of radiation one receives is so small as to be completely safe. We've seen on Slashdot how poorly the computer based voting machines the government buys work. It seems perfectly possible these devices could be just as poorly made...

Keep in mind the reference is not just function definitions. The main content is actually approximations to functions (asymptotic, series, and polynomial) and various formulas involving relationships between functions.

Well, the law could require allowing anyone with a different view point to be able to advertise (such as when there are more than two viewpoints) . The "sponsored by Budweiser" ad you describe is exactly the point of the law. If everyone gets equal time broadcasting their views, then the influence of being able to broadcast your view is drowned out. It would certainly allow all kinds of crazy response ads. The point though would be that fairly quickly media would simply stop accepting all paid political ads. It wouldn't be in their financial interest to continue doing so.

The "loss of the airwaves" and cost to the media would just be too bad. They could choose to not show any political ads, and therefore not have to worry about losing control of their ad time.

Regarding the limiting of free speech, I can see that argument being made, but counter arguments can also be made. There used to be a fairness doctorine regarding radio (abolished during the Regan administration). In the past the Supreme court ruled that it was acceptable for radio. I believe such doctorines were shot down for newspapers on the principle that it violated freedom of the press in some way and that anyone could in theory create their own newspaper (which is not possible with radio stations). (I'll admit my limited knowledge here is from wikipedia and may be incorrect.)

Could this decision by made ineffective by passing a law saying that when political / issue advertising is purchased in media, groups with opposition views must be _freely_ given an equal amount of time / space to rebut the advertisement. Perhaps even stronger, the space / time the rebuttal is given must immediately follow / be next to the original advertisement?

Can someone explain why this wouldn't be constitutionally legal? I don't see a free speech argument since any group can now advertise / make their views heard...